Connect with us

COVID-19

COVID Is Over — But Did We Learn Anything From It?

Published

7 months ago

7 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By PETER ROFF

 

The lockdowns instituted during the COVID pandemic were only supposed to last a few days. Remember “14 days to flatten the curve” was all that was needed to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed by patients infected with the rapidly spreading novel coronavirus.

Two weeks turned into three, then months. Schools were closed. Businesses were shut down. Commercial activity in the world’s most powerful nation ground almost to a halt, but the virus kept killing, mutating and spreading.

States like California and Kentucky enforced the lockdowns with ruthless efficiency. The free exercise of worship and assembly was crushed on the altar of public health and safety.

Was it worth it? The Committee to Unleash Prosperity’s report, “COVID Lessons Learned: A Retrospective After Four Years,” says no. Its authors, who include the Hoover Institution’s Dr. Scott Atlas (who served as an adviser to the White House Coronavirus Task Force), Johns Hopkins University economist Steve Hanke and the University of Chicago’s Casey Mulligan conclude, by using publicly available data and peer-reviewed studies, that the lockdowns cost more lives than they saved.

Atlas, Hanke, Mulligan and Phil Kerpen, president of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity (CTUP) and the fourth and final co-author, conclude: “The ordered shutdown of our schools, churches, and businesses brought little health benefits while imposing multi-trillions of dollars of long-term societal costs.”

“We did not focus on theories or models. We looked at cold, hard facts,” Kerpen says. “The evidence is overwhelming. Lockdowns, school closures, and societal panic/disruption resulted in a staggering number of excess non-COVID deaths in the United States versus zero in non-lockdown Sweden.”

Kerpen estimates that the policies implemented during the lockdowns saved approximately 16,000 lives while causing about 400,000 extra deaths and imposing staggering economic costs, including the loss of 49 million jobs.

Other adverse consequences stemming from the lockdowns cited in the report include a $6 trillion increase in government debt, hundreds of thousands of business bankruptcies and hundreds of thousands of excess deaths from loneliness, depression, alcoholism, drug abuse and delayed hospital care in part due to the forced social isolation.

In the U.S., catastrophes like COVID are usually followed by the appointment of bi-partisan, blue-ribbon commissions to study everything and issue recommendations we’re told will prevent something similar from happening again.

That hasn’t been done this time, which reinforces the suspicion in some minds that COVID-era policymakers who are still in a position to influence the conversation are hiding something. Having made a hash of things, they just as soon allow it all to slide down the memory hole.

Even in China, where popular opinion doesn’t matter, the investigation into the origins of the virus hit a stonewall thanks to what news reports have called “bureaucratic infighting.”

Too many people think the lockdowns worked. They’re ignoring the data. The CTUP report shows them to be wrong. It’s a call for a further probe that searches for the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it might be. Without it, how can we be sure the public’s health and safety will be protected the next time, not to mention our civil liberties?

The CTUP report offers a few “lessons learned” that should inform policymakers’ decision-making in the next crisis. One is that “Leaders should calm public fears, not stoke them.”

“Conventional wisdom pre-COVID was that communities respond best to pandemics when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted,” the authors conclude. During the pandemic, responsible officials in the public eye “intentionally stoked and amplified fear, which overlaid enormous economic, social, educational, and health harms on top of the harms of the virus itself.”

As hard as it is to argue against that, it’s easy to suggest the crisis was used as a political club. What of it? Suppose public health officials, the media, and other policymakers deliberately ignored sound science and proven pandemic countermeasures to inflict political damage on a president they wished to see booted from office. Does that matter? The answer is yes, it does.

There’s more to be learned because there’s more to be studied. None of the nations that used lockdowns to prevent COVID from spreading can report that they worked as intended.

“The best-performing major country in the world was Sweden,” Kerpen says, “which did not employ mandatory lockdowns. Yet, to the extent that official and unofficial commissions in many countries have issued reports, they say the principal lesson to be learned from the pandemic is to lockdown harder and faster. The evidence doesn’t support that. It tells us that the lockdown policies must never be imposed again.”

If Kerpen is correct, and the evidence suggests he is, then policymakers are drawing the wrong conclusions. Lockdowns were a failure, not a success.

Other ways must be found to prevent a future outbreak from turning into a pandemic, hopefully, before the next crisis presents itself.

A former U.S. News & World Report columnist and United Press International senior political writer, Peter Roff is an acknowledged expert on U.S. politics and the policy process. His take on politics and policy appears frequently in print and on U.S. and international broadcasting outlets. Email him at RoffColumns AT gmail.com. Follow him on social media AT TheRoffDraft.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 14 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 15 hours ago

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

National / 15 hours ago

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

COVID-19

Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Christina Maas of Reclaim The Net

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for ‘deliberately lying’ about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act.

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing the bank accounts of civil liberties supporters during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.

Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.”

The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted sweeping powers to law enforcement, enabling them to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supported, the trucker-led protests. However, questions surrounding the legality of its invocation have lingered, with opposition parties and legal experts criticizing the move as excessive and unwarranted.

On Thursday, Mendicino faced calls for censure after Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against him. The former minister, who was removed from cabinet in 2023, stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.”

Mendicino’s repeated assertions at the time, including statements like, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations.

The controversy deepened as documents and testimony revealed discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis. While Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation, he cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” Green asked, to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.”

The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

‘I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country,’ said COVID critic Dr. William Bay.

A long-awaited decision regarding the suspension of the medical registration of Dr William Bay by the Medical Board of Australia has been handed down by the Queensland Supreme Court. Justice Thomas Bradley overturned the suspension, finding that Bay had been subject to “bias and failure to afford fair process” over complaints unrelated to his clinical practice.

The case was important because it reversed the brutal censorship of medical practitioners, which had forced many doctors into silence during the COVID crisis to avoid losing their livelihoods.

Bay and his supporters were jubilant after the decision. “The judgement in the matter of Bay versus AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the state of Queensland has just been handed down, and we have … absolute and complete victory,” he proclaimed outside the court. “I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country.”

Bay went on: “The vaccines are bad, the vaccines are no good, and people should be afforded the right to informed consent to choose these so-called vaccines. Doctors like me will be speaking out because we have nothing to fear.”

Bay added that the judge ruled not only to reinstate his registration, but also set aside the investigation into him, deeming it invalid. He also forced AHPRA to pay the legal costs. “Everything is victorious for myself, and I praise God,” he said.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which partners the Medical Board of Australia, is a body kept at arm’s length from the government to prevent legal and political accountability. It was able to decide which doctors could be deregistered for allegedly not following the government line. If asked questions about its decisions AHPRA would reply that it was not a Commonwealth agency so there was no obligation to respond.

The national board of AHPRA is composed of two social workers, one accountant, one physiotherapist, one mathematician and three lawyers. Even the Australian Medical Association, which also aggressively threatened dissenting doctors during COVID, has objected to its role. Vice-president Dr Chris Moy described the powers given to AHPRA as being “in the realms of incoherent zealotry”.

This was the apparatus that Bay took on, and his victory is a significant step towards allowing medical practitioners to voice their concerns about Covid and the vaccines. Until now, most doctors, at least those still in a job, have had to keep any differing views to themselves. As Bay suggests, that meant they abrogated their duty to ensure patients gave informed consent.

Justice Bradley said the AHPRA board’s regulatory role did not “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.” To that extent the decision seems to allow freedom of speech for medical practitioners. But AHPRA still has the power to deregister doctors without any accountability. And if there is one lesson from Covid it is that bureaucrats in the Executive branch have little respect for legal or ethical principles.

It is to be hoped that Australian medicos who felt forced into silence now begin to speak out about the vaccines, the mandating of which has coincided with a dramatic rise in all-cause mortality in heavily vaccinated countries around the world, including Australia. This may prove psychologically difficult, though, because those doctors would then have to explain why they have changed their position, a discussion they will no doubt prefer to avoid.

The Bay decision has implications for the way the three arms of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, function in Australia. There are supposed to be checks and balances, but the COVID crisis revealed that, when put under stress, the separation of powers does not work well, or at all.

During the crisis the legislature routinely passed off its responsibilities to the executive branch, which removed any voter influence because bureaucrats are not elected. The former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, went a step further by illegitimately giving himself and the Health Minister positions in the executive branch, when all they were entitled to was roles in the legislature as members of the party in power. This appalling move resulted in the biggest political protests ever seen in Melbourne, yet the legislation passed anyway.

The legislature’s abrogation of responsibility left the judiciary as the only branch of government able to address the abuse of Australia’s foundational political institutions. To date, the judges have disappointed. But the Bay decision may be a sign of better things to come.

READ: Just 24% of Americans plan to receive the newest COVID shot: poll

Continue Reading

Trending

X